> From: Vladislav Zolotarov [mailto:vladz at cloudius-systems.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 12:02 PM > To: Ananyev, Konstantin > Cc: Zhang, Helin; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/3]: Add LRO support to ixgbe PMD > > > On Apr 23, 2015 12:20 PM, "Ananyev, Konstantin" <konstantin.ananyev at > intel.com> wrote: > > > > Argh, yep my bad -? somehow missed that ixgbe/ixgbe_type.h was modified. > > Yep, I suppose it has to be fixed asap. > > Vlad, can you provide a patch and move it into struct ixgbe_adapter, as was > > suggested? > I suddenly recalled that i had promised u something in regard to > recv_scattered()... ;) > I'll prepare a cleanup series that fixes both this "issue" and kills the > ixgbe_scattered_xxx() replacing them with _lro() callbacks.
Sounds great :) Thanks Konstantin > > Thanks > > Konstantin > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Zhang, Helin > > > Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 1:28 AM > > > To: Vlad Zolotarov; dev at dpdk.org > > > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin > > > Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/3]: Add LRO support to ixgbe PMD > > > > > > Vlad > > > > > > OK. Thanks! We will try to see if a follow up patch set can be submitted > > > soon. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Helin > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz at cloudius-systems.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 5:19 PM > > > > To: Zhang, Helin; dev at dpdk.org > > > > Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/3]: Add LRO support to ixgbe PMD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 04/22/15 08:28, Zhang, Helin wrote: > > > > > Vlad, how about the new elements added? E.g. rx_vec_allowed was added > > > > > in > > > > struct ixgbe_hw in ixgbe_type.h. > > > > > > > > If memory (and sight) serves me well this wasn't in this series... I > > > > suggest we > > > > move to the relevant thread ("bug fixes in the ixgbe PF PMD Rx flow"). > > > > In any case, both this and that series were already committed: this to > > > > 2.1 tree and the one with the issue u r referring - to 2.0. U are > > > > welcome to post > > > > a follow up series. > > > > > > > > Moving them say to ixgbe_adapter would address the issue I guess. It > > > > would be > > > > nice if u could CC me when u send the series. > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > vlad > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > Helin > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: Vlad Zolotarov [mailto:vladz at cloudius-systems.com] > > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:59 PM > > > > >> To: Zhang, Helin; dev at dpdk.org > > > > >> Cc: Ananyev, Konstantin > > > > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/3]: Add LRO support to ixgbe PMD > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On 04/22/15 04:23, Zhang, Helin wrote: > > > > >>> Hi Vlad > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I have a concern about the code changes you added in ixgbe_type.h. > > > > >> Helin, v9 of this series has addressed exactly this "issue" all new > > > > >> macros have been moved to ixgbe_ethdev.h. > > > > >> > > > > >>> For ixgbe, all source files in librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe, except > > > > >>> ixgbe_osdep.h > > > > >> were called as "base driver", which was not developed by DPDK > > > > >> developers, and released by the other team. We never modify any code > > > > >> in those base driver source files, and just copy those file into > > > > >> DPDK project. > > > > >>> We did everything in DPDK developed source files. As we depends on > > > > >>> that > > > > >> team to update future base driver for us, and we don't want to > > > > >> maintain any code changes in "base driver". So we need to think to > > > > >> move your code changes in ixgbe_type.h to other DPDK developed source > > > > files. > > > > >>> Though your code changes is good enough, but we may need to comply > > > > >>> with > > > > >> what we did before. This will save our maintaining efforts in the > > > > >> future. Also we have similar rules for e1000, i40e, fm10k. Thank you > > > > >> very > > > > much! > > > > >>> Regards, > > > > >>> Helin > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vlad > > > > >>>> Zolotarov > > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 1:52 AM > > > > >>>> To: dev at dpdk.org > > > > >>>> Subject: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v8 0/3]: Add LRO support to ixgbe PMD > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> This series adds the missing flow for enabling the LRO in the > > > > >>>> ethdev and adds a support for this feature in the ixgbe PMD. There > > > > >>>> is a big hope that this initiative is going to be picked up by some > > > > >>>> Intel developer that would add the LRO support to other Intel PMDs. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> The series starts with some cleanup work in the code the final > > > > >>>> patch (the actual adding of the LRO support) is going to > > > > touch/use/change. > > > > >>>> There are still quite a few issues in the ixgbe PMD code left but > > > > >>>> they have to be a matter of a different series and I've left a few > > > > >>>> "TODO" > > > > >>>> remarks in the code. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> The LRO ("RSC" in Intel's context) PMD completion handling code > > > > >>>> follows the same design as the corresponding Linux and FreeBSD > > > > >>>> implementation: pass the aggregation's cluster HEAD buffer to the > > > > >>>> NEXTP entry of the software ring till EOP is met. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> HW configuration follows the corresponding specs: this feature is > > > > >>>> supported only by x540 and > > > > >>>> 82599 PF devices. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> The feature has been tested with seastar TCP stack with the > > > > >>>> following configuration on Tx side: > > > > >>>>? ? ? - MTU: 400B > > > > >>>>? ? ? - 100 concurrent TCP connections. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> The results were: > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Without LRO: total throughput: 0.12Gbps, coefficient of > > > > >>>>variance: > > > > >> 1.41% > > > > >>>>? ? ? - With LRO:? ? total throughput: 8.21Gbps, coefficient of > > > > variance: > > > > >> 0.59% > > > > >>>> This is an almost factor 80 improvement. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> New in v8: > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Fixed the structs naming: igb_xxx -> ixgbe_xxx (some > > > > >>>> leftovers in > > > > >> PATCH2). > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Took the RSC configuration code from ixgbe_dev_rx_init() > > > > >>>> into a > > > > >> separate > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? function - ixgbe_set_rsc(). > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Added some missing macros for HW configuration. > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Styling adjustments: > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? ?- Functions names. > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? ?- Functions descriptions. > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Reworked the ixgbe_free_rsc_cluster() code to make it more > > > > >> readable. > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Kill the HEADER_SPLIT flow in ixgbe_set_rsc() since it's not > > > > >>>> supported > > > > >> by > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? ixgbe PMD. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> New in v7: > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Free not-yet-completed RSC aggregations in > > > > >>>>rte_eth_dev_stop() > > > > flow. > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Fixed rx_bulk_alloc_allowed and rx_vec_allowed > > > > >>>>initialization: > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? ?- Don't set them to FALSE in rte_eth_dev_stop() flow - the > > > > following > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? ? ?rte_eth_dev_start() will need them. > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? ?- Reset them to TRUE in rte_eth_dev_configure() and not in > > > > >>>> a > > > > >>>> probe() flow. > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? ? ?This will ensure the proper behaviour if port is > > > > >>>>re-configured. > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Reset the sw_ring[].mbuf entry in a bulk allocation case. > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? This is needed for ixgbe_rx_queue_release_mbufs(). > > > > >>>>? ? ? - _recv_pkts_lro(): added the missing memory barrier before > > > > >>>> RDT update in a > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? non-bulk allocation case. > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Don't allow RSC when device is configured in an SR-IOV mode. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> New in v6: > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Fix of the typo in the "bug fixes" series that broke the > > > > >>>> compilation caused a > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? minor change in this follow-up series. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> New in v5: > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Split the series into "bug fixes" and "all the rest" so that > > > > >>>> the former could be > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? integrated into a 2.0 release. > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Put the RTE_ETHDEV_HAS_LRO_SUPPORT definition at the > > > > >>>> beginning of rte_ethdev.h. > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Removed the "TODO: Remove me" comment near > > > > >>>> RTE_ETHDEV_HAS_LRO_SUPPORT. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> New in v4: > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Remove CONFIG_RTE_ETHDEV_LRO_SUPPORT from > > > > >>>> config/common_linuxapp. > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Define RTE_ETHDEV_HAS_LRO_SUPPORT in rte_ethdev.h. > > > > >>>>? ? ? - As a result of "ixgbe: check rxd number to avoid mbuf leak" > > > > >>>> (352078e8e) Vector Rx > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? had to get the same treatment as Rx Bulk Alloc (see PATCH4 > > > > >>>> for more details). > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> New in v3: > > > > >>>>? ? ? - ixgbe_rx_alloc_bufs(): Always reset refcnt of the buffers > > > > >>>>to 1. > > > > >>>> Otherwise > > > > >>>> rte_pktmbuf_free() > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? won't free them. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> New in v2: > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Removed rte_eth_dev_data.lro_bulk_alloc and added > > > > >>>> ixgbe_hw.rx_bulk_alloc_allowed > > > > >>>>? ? ? ? instead. > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Unified the rx_pkt_bulk callback setting (a separate new > > > > >>>>patch). > > > > >>>>? ? ? - Fixed a few styling and spelling issues. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Vlad Zolotarov (3): > > > > >>>>? ? ?ixgbe: Cleanups > > > > >>>>? ? ?ixgbe: Code refactoring > > > > >>>>? ? ?ixgbe: Add LRO support > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>? ? lib/librte_ether/rte_ethdev.h? ? ? ? ? ?|? ?9 +- > > > > >>>>? ? lib/librte_net/rte_ip.h? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?|? ?3 + > > > > >>>>? ? lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe/ixgbe_type.h |? ?6 + > > > > >>>>? ? lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.c? ? ?|? 11 + > > > > >>>>? ? lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_ethdev.h? ? ?|? ?5 + > > > > >>>>? ? lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.c? ? ? ?| 766 > > > > >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > > >>>>? ? lib/librte_pmd_ixgbe/ixgbe_rxtx.h? ? ? ?|? ?6 + > > > > >>>>? ? 7 files changed, 737 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> -- > > > > >>>> 2.1.0 > >
